Re: [HACKERS] Does having a NULL column automatically exclude thetable from the tupleDesc cache?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Does having a NULL column automatically exclude thetable from the tupleDesc cache?
Дата
Msg-id CA+Tgmobr7OVgeB=CZvrnk=o+5SpxN2EXTkWOh5ZwBTyrEF7vmA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Does having a NULL column automatically exclude thetable from the tupleDesc cache?  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Does having a NULL column automatically exclude thetable from the tupleDesc cache?  (Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/17 1:37 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
>>     attcacheoff can only be set positive for fields preceding any varlena
>>     (typlen<0, but including the first such) or nullable values.  I don't
>>     know how much faster it is with the cache; you can measure it if your
>>     curiosity is strong enough -- just set the first column to nullable.
>>
>> Thanks!  Maybe I'll do some benchmarks.
>
> You'll probably want to do those at a C level, bypassing the executor. I
> would guess that executor overhead will completely swamp the effect of the
> cache in most cases.

That seems like it's kind of missing the point.  If the tupleDesc
cache saves so little that it's irrelevant when tested through the
executor, it's not a very useful cache.  I bet that's not the case,
though.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint